But three years is not really a reasonable lifetime for your data. Say your family photo or your e-book collection and three years is not a long lifetime for a machine. I've got two machines running on ten years and two newer ones. A 1TB drive costs less tha $100 in many places and is small enough to fit in a pocket now.

Yes, but your 1 TB drive will likely fail within 3 years assuming constant use. (Mine just did, in fact.)

The effective cost here of the cloud storage is the difference between this chromebook and ultrabooks or the MacBook Air, assuming that you've bought into the trade-off between local processing and cloud computing that provide the benefits you'd get with the chromebook.

That premium then is perhaps somewhere between $200 and $300, given the quality of the screen and build on this device. So the difference isn't really that large, given that you're also relieved of the hassle of backing up to that TB drive regularly.

Meh. I got an excellent desktop back in january that has twice the memory, way better processing power and upgradable for less than this. Should last be at least 4-6 years. Tablets and tablet computers are fine for entertainment purposes. But for any actual work they are not. A $1300 pricetag for a toy like this is crazy.

Meh. I got an excellent desktop back in january that has twice the memory, way better processing power and upgradable for less than this. Should last be at least 4-6 years. Tablets and tablet computers are fine for entertainment purposes. But for any actual work they are not. A $1300 pricetag for a toy like this is crazy.

This is neither a tablet computer nor a desktop (which can always be had more cheaply than a high end laptop.)

Even paying $199 for the privilege of providing Google with my personal data every step of the way (by using a chromebook), when I already have plenty of other browsing devices available, seems ludicrous to me. They should pay me 199 to use it, that would make sense.

Even paying $199 for the privilege of providing Google with my personal data every step of the way (by using a chromebook), when I already have plenty of other browsing devices available, seems ludicrous to me. They should pay me 199 to use it, that would make sense.

Even paying $199 for the privilege of providing Google with my personal data every step of the way (by using a chromebook), when I already have plenty of other browsing devices available, seems ludicrous to me. They should pay me 199 to use it, that would make sense.

It doesn't have to be that way.
I have set up chrome and chrome (os) on my desktop.
I use a Google account set up with my initials. There is no mail. There are no contacts, no credit card. I can now download apps, etc.
If I wish to buy something from Google Play Store, I will put in a credit card or maybe PayPal. I do that a lot with credit cards. I have a special one for online purchases.

I don't have that $199 device (the Acer C7 - I presume) yet because I want more battery life. I like the 320GB HD. I can add 2GB to make a total of 4GB for about $12.
According to the gurus out there, I could put Ubuntu on it and make it a dual boot, and even add more memory. I have never done dual boot, but it makes for more possibilities.
I looked at the Chrome (offline) Apps. I can do all I want to do with them without a cloud.

It will take the place of my net-book in time and give me only 1 MS machine that I use. I look at it as "less headaches."

Could I be wrong? Could Chrome OS bring its own headaches. I guess the "truth in the pudding is in the eating."

Yes, but your 1 TB drive will likely fail within 3 years assuming constant use. (Mine just did, in fact.)

Crappy drive, then. My 64GB Western Digital drive has been in use since at least 2004. It started as my D:\, but got promoted to C:\ (replacing a 6GB from ~2000 - which I'm sure still works, but I only have one IDE bus/cable on this mobo, so can't test it) a few years ago.